Devaluing photography even further.  Thanks...

Huh? R You nuts? I earn my living doing this stuff. Bah haaaa haa 20 to
40 cents.  

You overlook the fact that nobody has ever heard of your site, so how long
is it going to take before the public start seeing the photographs, and by
extension, the photographers who decide who post with you?  Though I
disagree strongly with the so-called microstock sites, such as istockphoto
which you mentioned, at least the public, or anyway the designers, know
about them, and buy stock from them; the disagreeable part is the insulting
few cents the photographer gets per sale.  They devalue the photographs
placed with them and the photographers who took them, and dilute the work of
proper and responsible agencies such as Alamy, who charge a full and correct
value per sale (and, incidentally, pay 65% or 75% of each sale to the
photographer, depending on the plan, not the 20 to 40 you said). Alamy pays
my mortgage.

As a matter of interest, I've just spoken to an amateur photographer friend
of mine who tried some of his work with a new microstock agency he liked the
look of.  He tells me this agency has now been around for about 5 months and
so far has sold 55 pictures. Big deal.  Furthermore, in the last two months
they've only sold 5. Yes, five.  The point is, it's going to take a while to
get known, and unless you have the marketing skills and the funds to push it
like hell you simply won't see much happen, and nor will your photographers.
It's cutthroat out there.

Works fine for me and mozilla.
My site  Traffic Rank for clarkvision.com:  506,159
whatever that means.
Roger

It only reports actual traffic for the top 100,000 websites.  It rates
them down
to 10 millionth or something like that.
Type in dpreview.com and take a look at the traffic details.